Let's have a vote: Should the West intervene in Syria?

[classical_hero]

Pretty well, actually. If you don't mind the ethnic clensing and whatnot.

Isn't that's what is right now already?

 

[Rashiminos]

I beg your pardon. I certainly AM busy and I got 380,000 workers in the mix, too. We just have 200 years of a dug-in adversary to unseat is all.

Just 'cause it ain't in the news, don't meam it ain't happening.

Sent via mobile.

You're pardoned. I meant a more general revolution in which (tens/hundreds of) millions were participating. There would also be the prospect of extreme violence like the last major episode.

I am surprised that kissinger is even alive. That entity most probably is run by an alien spider wearing some vaguely human-looking skin-costume.

He got the deluxe pension plan complete with longevity care in return for his dutiful services to the Office of the Secretary of State, both as acting secretary and as consultant to his successors.

Last but not least, such a partitioning of Syria would open a Pandora's Box of HURT. Do you realize how many countries in the world are ethnically and religiously diverse? Should the West support their dismemberment as well, perhaps including some of the Western countries such as Spain, Britain, Belgium, France, Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Romania, Canada, the US, etc.? Do we really wish to have ~2000 sovereign states in the world instead of the ~200 we have now? Who on Earth can seriously believe that balkanizing everything would help to make the world more stable?

Because Balkanization would be applied equally without consideration of the power structures involved.

 

[Borachio]

BBC: 2 million people have fled Syria

-> Good, soon there won't be any people in Syria left to worry about.

While 2 million is a lot of refugees, that still leaves 20.5 million in Syria.

 

[dutchfire]

BBC: 2 million people have fled Syria

-> Good, soon there won't be any people in Syria left to worry about.

If you want to know how much all the people/nations that want to intervene in Syria care about the people of Syria, you should probably look at how much they are doing to help the refugees.

 

[Borachio]

As I understand it, quite a lot has been, and is being, done for the Syrian refugees. I don't think they've been forgotten by any means.

On the other hand, it's still a major upheaval of a large population, with a knock-on effect on all the host countries in the region.

 

[danjuno]

Considering the Billions and Trillions our politicians fight over, they could've sent more than 800 mil.

 

[Borachio]

You'll not get a disagreement from me on that.

Indeed, I'd say if the billions spent on the military went on aid and development instead, the world would be very quickly transformed.

It's not going to happen, though. The military-industrial lobby is far too powerful.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

You'll not get a disagreement from me on that.

Indeed, I'd say if the billions spent on the military went on aid and development instead, the world would be very quickly transformed.

It's not going to happen, though. The military-industrial lobby is far too powerful.

It's not the military-industrial lobby that's causing the (majority of in any case) spending. Evidence: The US military is being used.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I support boots in the ground to oust the government responsible for these chemical attacks on the Syrian population.

The House of Saud has held the world to randsom for too long!

 

[Defiant47]

Indeed, I'd say if the billions spent on the military went on aid and development instead, the world would be very quickly transformed.

We'd also be able to transform the world if we didn't spend so much money on police forces. Can you imagine the millions and billions we could put towards research or hospitals instead? We'll just have to hope that people stop being criminals.

Point: military spending isn't really a choice. It's a necessity. You'd need a magical land for us to actually have a choice to avoid spending on the military.

Inadvertent strawman: You're probably not advocating for cutting military spending altogether, I know. The issue is that we may be spending too much. And I'd be inclined to agree.

It's not the military-industrial lobby that's causing the (majority of in any case) spending. Evidence: The US military is being used.

The idea is that the military industry has sway in political decisions, bringing us into wars so that the industry can continue booming and feeding the US military's demand for weapons.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I support boots in the ground to oust the government responsible for these chemical attacks on the Syrian population.

The House of Saud has held the world to randsom for too long!

But, um, true.

Sent via mobile.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The idea is that the military industry has sway in political decisions, bringing us into wars so that the industry can continue booming and feeding the US military's demand for weapons.

While I completely disagree with the idea, a much better phrasing would probably be that "The Military-Industrial complex works to perpetuate the idea that the US needs to hold onto its power."

I suggest the different phrasing because the US arguing over specific wars is useless. US military power is overwhelming in an effort to keep wars from having or compel countries to act in a manner that is good for the US.

 

[Rashiminos]

We'd also be able to transform the world if we didn't spend so much money on police forces. Can you imagine the millions and billions we could put towards research or hospitals instead? We'll just have to hope that people stop being criminals.

Whoa whoa whoa. Banks first.

 

[Antilogic]

While I completely disagree with the idea, a much better phrasing would probably be that "The Military-Industrial complex works to perpetuate the idea that the US needs to hold onto its power."

I suggest the different phrasing because the US arguing over specific wars is useless. US military power is overwhelming in an effort to keep wars from having or compel countries to act in a manner that is good for the US.

Huh? His phrasing was just fine.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

My post had some errors that I'm too lazy to correct.

But I stand by what I was getting at, his statement was too narrow.

 

[trader/warrior]

Voted yes to punitive airstrikes, but feel I should clarify. If Obama did drop a few bombs, I wouldn't really care, the west is already involved in this conflict in a much uglier way through arms and aid. My main problem is that everyone seems set on this war ending in total victory for one side or another, when it is obvious both would result in catastrophy. Why are noone calling for a ceasefire and negotiations? If a proper ultimatum to stop all fighting in Syria with the rebels not being given free reign, I could support quite massive international intervention. Someone on here said that Syria was nothing compared to stuff that goes on in Africa and other places, while those do not get enough attention, it also totally lacks perspective, Syria is the most devastating war for quite some time and it really needs to stop.

 

[Flying Pig]

Peacekeeping in that sense has largely been tried and found wanting: although neutral, international troops have occasionally been able to enforce pre-existing ceasefires, such as between Israel and Egypt following the Suez Crisis, or between the two Koreas, the UN remains the only body to have attempted this in modern times and it has a particularly poor record of doing so. Rwanda is the classic case of peacekeeping gone wrong, where the need to remain impartial and avoid becoming a third belligerent results in peacekeeping forces being hamstrung by rules of engagement and unable to effectively intervene in the conflict or prevent war crimes from being committed. Even in the Balkans, the UN was singularly incompetant at actually keeping peace, and only when NATO itself took over the work was anything done. I'm not sure that I'd be comfortable with the same happening in Syria, as the result would inevitably be an American occupation under any other name: as has correctly been pointed out, the strongest argument against toppling the Assad government is that nobody particularly fancies seeing the other side running the show, either.

 

[Glassmage]

No. I rather have idiot Bush than this evil president we have now.

 

[classical_hero]

I support boots in the ground to oust the government responsible for these chemical attacks on the Syrian population.

The House of Saud has held the world to randsom for too long!

Brilliant. Shame no one in the Congress or the Presidency team would ever advocate that.

 

[JollyRoger]

Why rely on the government for a boots on the ground handout? Plenty of private comapies with access to boots.